Offshore drilling moratorium lifted

According to the Associated Press, President Bush, in an act of sheer brilliance, "lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president."

With that said, lifting the ban from the executive end is only one hurdle; now, Democratically-controlled Congress, in order to establish the possibility of off-shore drilling, must lift a ban as well.

It's up to the Democrats now; within days and weeks, we'll find out just who they represent. Will they heed the call of the working class Democrat, the constituent who's way of life and his/her pocketbook has been hit hard by rising energy prices? Or will Democratically-controlled Congress bow to the wishes of the environmental lobby, which has perpetuated the lie of global warming as well as the evil of fossil fuels?

Here are the FACTS, sentiment for cultivating our natural resources is growing: whether it's drilling for oil off our coasts or in Alaska, using coal as a fuel, or building more nuclear reactors. According to the Pew Research Center, a June survey indicated that 50% of the public believes we should drill in Alaska, compared to 43% who are opposed (up from 42% in a February survey). Furthermore, more people now believe that developing our energy infrastructure is more important than protecting our environment (by a staggering 60%-34% margin).

With that said, there should be a compromise. Drilling technologies have changed drastically over the years; oil companies can drill for oil without leaving a footprint.

The environmental argument is fading; in the past few years, we've seen the Democrats side with Islamic fundamentalist, the environmental lobby, and the open border crowd. How much longer will we tolerate their indefensible attacks against this country?

Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq: Vindication, but no thanks to the MSM

It's really quite sad how biased our media has become. I was browsing the web yesterday, looking for topics upon to pontificate, when I came across an op-ed piece written by Christopher Merola on Townhall.com. This column, entitled "Have Your Yellowcake and Eat it too," discusses a recent Associated Press report about how the our military recently shipped approximately 550 tons of yellowcake, FOUND IN IRAQ, back to the United States for safe keeping.

Yet, we've heard virtually nothing in the mainstream media, which, in case you've been living in a cave for the past 20 years, is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. In fact, reading liberal media, the consensus is either that the Bush Administration PLANTED this uranium in Iraq or his father's administration (H.W.) clandestinely allowed Saddam to keep 550 tons of yellowcake uranium so his son (Dubya) could have impetus to invade Iraq 12/13 years later.

It's almost laughable, but it isn't. For three, four, five years we've been told that George Bush lied to us, that he waged war against Iraq illegally. We were told that Saddam NEVER possessed WMD; in fact, neo-cons and their Republican benefactors recklessly cost us blood and treasure for oil, to retaliate against a regime and a man that attempted to assassinate H.W. Bush, or merely for the fun of it.

We've been told that Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent on a fact-finding mission to Niger with the hope of investigating claims that Iraqi agents attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium (to aid in the nuclear process), found no evidence of any transactions or even attempts to purchase said yellowcake uranium, despite intelligence to the contrary not just from the CIA but from British and Russian intelligence.

What you won't hear from the supposedly impartial mainstream media is that in fact the Butler Report from the British Parliamentary found CREDIBLE intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellowcase from Niger in 1999. According to Gregg Jackson's "Conservative Lies to Liberal Comebacks," the Butler Report stated that in order to disparage the Bush Administration and the war effort, someone forged documents and openly distributed them, saying that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium. They SO badly forged the documents, they had to make the yellowcake claim to be a lie. MOST, including the mainstream media, elitist liberals, and the rest of the sheeple on the Left, believed it.

We've also been told that in response to Wilson's "claims," Vice President Dick Cheney revealed to columnist Robert Novak, that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a COVERT CIA agent. Furthermore, we've been told that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney. Finally, we've been implored to believe that Plame was an active CIA agent. But despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the FOLLOWING is actually true: first, the revelation that Plame had worked for the CIA came from Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War; second, the request for Wilson to investigate the yellowcake claim came at the behest of Plame herself; finally, Plame had not worked "undercover" (considered a covert agent) for over six years...in fact, she was assigned to a desk job.

I write this because I was having a conversation with my fiance about another lie perpetuated by liberals and their enablers in the media: global warming. She had expressed a desire to know what the TRUTH is about rising gas prices, carbon dioxide, melting icebergs, etc. She subsequently stated that it would be nice if one could navigate to a website that actually stated the facts.

Ironically, this conversation occurred after reading the recent report about the recent shipment of Saddam's yellowcake uranium. It's time for us in the conservative blogosphere to spread the message: we refuse to tolerate the lies and vitriol spread from the left.

Blunderin' Barry Obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's speech in Powder Springs, GA was just another series of gaffes in an even longer SERIES OF GAFFES.

Let's review the following:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama lamented legislative pushes to make English the official language of the United States and said Americans should instead focus on making sure their children learn Spanish at a recent campaign stop."

I interpret this as tacit acceptance of increased immigration, more than likely illegal. I further interpret this as a sign, if elected, Obama and his Democratic counterparts in Congress, will do NOTHING to stop the spread of illegal immigration. Moreover, I see this as blatant pandering to the open borders crowd.

And the radical far-left is worried that Obama is shifting to far to the MIDDLE?

"As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against a measure to make English the official language of the United States in June 2007. He was one of 34 senators who voted against the measure.

At a Democratic primary debate Obama said he voted against it because 'This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us,' he said. He also called the issue a 'distraction' a word he commonly uses to describe controversial issues. Obama remarked, 'When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.'"

According to Obama, decreeing that English should be the official language of the United States is a "distraction," or "divisive."

Give me a break...this is coming from the King of Divisive, and his twenty year relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, that man who stated, "God Damn America," accused the United States of being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" and incorrectly accused the U.S. government of infecting young black with syphilis. Furthermore, the man also accused European-Americans of believing that blacks were inferior.

While Obama himself did not make these claims, it took him months after said claims were exposed to finally quit Wright's church. Moreover, how can one, while attending Wright's church for over TWENTY years, one could safely assume that Obama tacitly endorsed Wright's views. How could one NOT make that deduction?

"He continued his thoughts by expressing embarrassment at Americans’ language skills compared to the Europeans. “You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual,” he said. “We should have every child speaking more than one language. It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beacoup, right?'"

The above is typical rhetoric uttered by the Left: we need to be more like Europe. Why is that, oh mindless liberals, so we can appease terrorists, give back 80% of our paychecks to the government, have sub par health care, and work 30 hour weeks because our socialist lifestyles dictate that we should strive to be mediocre?

Yes, by all means, let's emulate Europe (rolling eyes).

So Ahmadinejad does or doesn't want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet?

MSNBC.com is reporting that Iran "test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said were intended to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported."

Instinctively, my first reaction was one of perverse gratification: you SEE liberal bastards, Iran is not a peaceful nation, representing a "religion of peace." No, on the contrary; they're terrorist group financiers (in terms of weapons, logistics, and cold hard cash) and they've killed and maimed hundreds of OUR soldiers in Iraq.

Yesterday, I chronicled Wisconsin congressional candidate, Kevin Barrett, essentially disputing the notion that Iran desires to see the "tumor" of Israel "wiped off the map." Why ELSE would Iran be developing a nuclear arsenal?

On the news today, I saw mindless idiots protesting not only the Iraq War, but any potential action against Iran as well. You on the Left just do NOT get it, do you?

"Oil prices jumped on news of the missile tests, rising $1.80 to $137.84 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by afternoon in Europe."

Doesn't this also indicate the need for this country to 1.) become less dependent on foreign oil; 2.) cultivate its own energy resources: off-shore/ANWAR oil; nuclear power; coal; oil shale?

Footage showed at least six missiles firing simultaneously and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

'Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch,' the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday."

It's entirely for "peaceful" purposes, I'm sure.

And you still propose to negotiate with this crazed madman, Obama?

I just hear the Defeatocrat crew coming to Iran's defense, despite the man's convictions about non-Muslims, women, and homosexuals...you know, issues you TRADITIONALLY immerse yourself in?

"Iran HAS to defend herself against the marauding imperialistic United States."

"Iran is only developing a PEACEFUL nuclear program."

"Iran is misunderstood."

And on, and on, and on...

Really, it's like pissing in the wind with the Left; they'll never get it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they just can't see the truth. You'd think 9/11 would have shook them.

But it didn't.

Wisconsin Congressional Candidate: Ahmadinejad never stated that Israel should be wiped off the map

And this statement did NOT come from a Democratic appeaser, but rather from Libertarian Kevin Barrett, whom, according to OpEdNews.com," has issued a demand of Ron Kind, the Democratic incumbent, to retract his endorsement of the claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.' According to Barret, an Arabist who has taught university course on Islam and is fluent in French and Arabic, Kind's position is based upon a false atribution and represents a mistranslation."

What we have here, folks, is a good old-fashioned apologist.

Here's another sign that people in Wisconsin aren't quite right.

"The candidate's demand concerns an extremely sensitive and important claim, which has frequently been cited by the Bush Administration to support its desire to take military action against Iran. According to Barret, the origin of the alleged quote is not the President of Iran but Ayatollah Khoemeni, whom Ahmedinejad was citing rather than making an assertion of his own."

Three points: First, the Bush Administration has not expressed any desire to attack Iran. In FACT, it is exhausting every means necessary, diplomatically, to stave off the Iranian nuclear threat. Again, more lies perpetuated by the Left. Think back to 2002: the Bush Administration exhausted every possible diplomatic means before toppling Saddam's regime to continue a CEASE-FIRE that was declared after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Also, Saddam violated 12 UN sanctions that called for military reprisal. In addition to Saddam profiting from the Oil-for-Food programs, countries that opposed the 2003 war, France, Germany, and Russia, profited extensively as well.

Second, so I guess one can safely assume that the Iranian despot wishes to seek normal relations with Israel? I don't think so. Regardless of this particular claim, didn't Ahmadinejad state that the Holocaust was a myth? Furthermore, he believes that he can hasten the return the of the Mahdi (or 12th imam) by waging an apocalyptic war against Israel, as well as other non-infidels (that's you and me). According to the Christian Science Monitor,

"From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."

Someone with plans on hastening the apocalypse through nuclear conflict has to be someone with whom perhaps-President Barry Obama could negotiate? Right, appeasers?

Of course the leftist apologists will state (and have stated on numerous occasions) that fundamental Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims.

"'This kind of mentality makes you very strong,' says Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper.

"'Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

'If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come [again], this idea will change all your relations,' says Mohebian. 'If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard.'"

Mohebian mistakenly believes that because Christians believe that the Lord Jesus will return as well, we will engage in open conflict and aggression.

Incorrect...in fact, if anything, Christians will attempt to "do good" in terms a moral code (no thanks to the moral relativism that the Left is pushing down our throats): good deeds, love, forgiveness, etc.

Third, many "expert" think it's the mullah who run the country. Assume for a moment that Ahmadinejad purportedly did state that Israel was a tumor that should be wiped off the map, instead it was the Ayatollah; do they (the mullahs) not hold the reins in that country?

The Swiss: Coming to their senses on Islam

In a sign that Europeans may be coming to their senses, "Switzerland will hold a nationwide referendum on whether to ban the construction of minarets where Muslims traditionally issue the call to prayer, officials said Tuesday," according to PR-Inside.com.

Upon first glance, this may seem a little excessive. However, this may be the sort of response necessary to combat the spread of militant Islam throughout the continent. Is it fair to say that Europeans grow tiresome of bowing to every Muslim's wish, while seeing that said Muslim will not reciprocate?

Yesterday, I documented that two seventh graders in England were given detention for refusing to pray to Allah. Appropriately, a grandfather of one of the students stated, "But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war. "

"The U.N. expert on racism, Doudou Diene, has said the campaign is evidence of an «ever-increasing trend» toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe."

Can anyone imagine why that is? Could it be that a significant portion of Muslims have demonstrated to other religions, not just in countries where Islam is the primary religion but in countries that are and have been predominantly Christian or another religion? We've seen, read, and heard about instances where Muslims have demonstrated their intolerance, whether it was the Muhammed cartoon flap of a couple years back, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, or the threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yet, we're supposed to demonstrate how tolerant we are in the west, while Muslims trample over basic rights of speech and religion.

We've seen, in England, Lord Chief Justice Phillips state that a Muslim could essentially practice Sharia but yet not conflict those beliefs and practices against standard British law: "He supported the idea that Sharia could be reasonably employed as a basis for "mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". He went further to defend Williams's position from earlier in the year, explaining "It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion." and "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, stated the same thing in February: "Noting the anxieties which the word Sharia provoked in the West he drew attention to the fact that there was a debate within Islam between what he called "primitivists" for whom, for instance, apostasy should still be punishable and those Muslims who argued that Sharia was a developing system of jurisprudence that such a view was no longer acceptable. He made comparisons with "Orthodox Jewish practice" (Beth Din) and with the recognition of the exercise of conscience of Christians."

The Swiss people are getting it right.

Now, if only the rest of Europe would follow suit...

MSNBC: Joint Chiefs head: Iraq security gains holding

So why withdraw troops now?

Nationally, we've heard the cavalcade of "bring 'em home" chants from our leftist elected officials. On the Minnesota front, Democrat challenger to Senator Norm Coleman, Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley) has made troop withdrawal a hallmark of his campaign platform.

According to MSNBC, "Iraq appears on track to establishing sustainable security — a key step toward withdrawing U.S. troops — the top U.S. military officer said Monday after visiting the newly quiet Sadr City section of the capital."

So tell me again why we want to withdraw now, as Iraq appears well on its way to becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East? Why would we throw away not the hard-fought successes we've gained in the past five years, but the four-thousand plus deaths of our fighting men and women.

I guess what they say about liberals and Democratic enablers is true: human life really is unimportant, especially if it's an American life. But, try to tell me that those opposed to freedom and democracy (see: Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic group of murderers, Guantanamo Bay detainees) lives are NOT more important in the eyes of the Left.

Because it ain't true.

You see, the Democrats have hedged their bets; they've allied themselves with the terrorists in a perverse arrangement whereby Islam uses the Democrats, and the Democrats conveniently forget that this "religion of peace" fundamentally opposes women's rights, multiculturism, alternative lifestyles, etc.

Yet, the Democrats, so blinded by the hatred for George Bush, as well as that of Christianity, have offered up their multicultural umbrella, in the hope that the poor Islamists will join them.